I see your point, but in this case the objects meet the dataset naming conventions of nonmigratable datasets, and I do know how they did get migrated, but I was wondering why they would have just sat in ML1 instead of going to ML2 after a period of time. I can see that the nonmigrate mgmtclas doesn't have a specification for ML1-ML2 age, because they are never supposed to get to ML1 in the first place, but I was thinking that since they are there, that possibly I "should" have set up the nonmigrate class to have a ML1 to ML2 age even though it should "never" have happened in the first place.
That was why I was wondering what other sites had done for their non-migratable stuff. Is it a normal thing to set up the ML1-ML2 aging in their definitions even though it shouldn't happen? I have checked several of the systems that we maintain, and it appears that when we set up a nomig class, that we never do anything for the aging. I'm not even sure it it's valid to do anything there. I'll test it, but it still struck me as odd and I was hoping that it was some glaring error that we have been making for a long time. I'll have to do some auditing to find out if it's a problem. Brian ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
